|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 4:04PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2011
|
Evangelize  is a highly unusual card in that the controller of the spell is not the player who chooses the target. The specific rulings for Evangelize cover several different interactions, but not all. Take the following scenarios: Scenario 1:Someone casts Evangelize targeting a creature I control. I then cast Reverberate  targeting Evangelize. Is there any way for me to legally choose a target for the copy? Scenario 2:I activate the ability of Cuombajj Witches  , then copy it with Rings of Brighthearth  . Who actually chooses the targets for the copy?
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 4:11PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 15, 2010
|
Looking at the second ruling on Evangelize : 9/25/2006 The target of the spell is a creature the chosen opponent controls. As Evangelize resolves, if the target isn't a creature controlled by the chosen opponent, Evangelize will be countered. If Evangelize's target is changed (via Shunt, for example), the new target must be a creature controlled by the chosen opponent.
You can indeed choose the new target for any copies yourself (since such effects copy the spell, then have a built-in Shunt effect). So the player who controlled Reverberate /the Rings of Brighthearth ability will choose (within limits) the new target.
Rules Nut Advisor
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 4:13PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2011
|
For the Evangelize / Reverberate scenario, I was referring to the fact that Reverberate doesn't let me choose a new opponent, but since I am not my opponent, I also cannot legally select any of my creatures as a target. Is that correct?
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 4:27PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 15, 2010
|
For the Evangelize / Reverberate scenario, I was referring to the fact that Reverberate doesn't let me choose a new opponent, but since I am not my opponent, I also cannot legally select any of my creatures as a target. Is that correct?
Ah, I see what you mean. You're correct. Since the chosen "opponent" (you) is locked in, and you are not your own opponent, you won't be able to choose a new, legal target.
Rules Nut Advisor
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 4:34PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2011
|
Good to know, thanks.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 4:54PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
I'm not convinced. Why couldn't you choose a new target, as long as it's controlled by the same chosen player, i.e. yourself?
When the spell is cast, an opponent must be chosen, but the opponenciness of that player is not rechecked at resolution, I think.
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 8:54PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2007
|
Noone mentioned any checks done at resolution?! When one casts Evangelize , two choices are made: a choice of opponent and a choice of target. When Evangelize is copied, so are both of those choices. Reverberate allows its controller to change the choice of target, but it doesn't allow its controller to change the choice of opponent. As such, Reveberate's controller is limited to choosing a creature controlled by the previously chosen opponent.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 9:41PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2011
|
I guess it boils down to whether or not "target creature of an opponent's choice that he or she controls" is equivalent to "target creature an opponent controls of his or her choice". In the latter case, obviously any creature you control is an illegal target since it's not a creature controlled by an opponent. I personally see no reason why these two phrases wouldn't mean the same thing, but I suppose Chaikov would argue differently.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 08, 2012 - 5:23AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
I guess it boils down to whether or not "target creature of an opponent's choice that he or she controls" is equivalent to "target creature an opponent controls of his or her choice". In the latter case, obviously any creature you control is an illegal target since it's not a creature controlled by an opponent. I personally see no reason why these two phrases wouldn't mean the same thing, but I suppose Chaikov would argue differently.
I'm not actually arguing one way or another, only raising a possibility.
It probably means the same, and TranscientMaster's response seems correct, as far as I can tell.
Still, this card is unusual; I guess the way it's worded made me overthink things!
So, the conclusion would be that a Reverberated Evangelize is doomed to fizzle, right?
@ikegami: perhaps you'd better try harder;
When one casts Evangelize , two choices are made: a choice of opponent and a choice of target. When Evangelize is copied, so are both of those choices. Reverberate allows its controller to change the choice of target, but it doesn't allow its controller to change the choice of opponent. As such, Reveberate's controller is limited to choosing a creature controlled by the previously chosen opponent.
Your response appears to ignore the fact that the chosen opponent also is the controller of the Evangelize-copy.
(but you'll deny this, of course)
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 08, 2012 - 5:29AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 29, 2007
|
The target condition is "creature of an opponent's choice that he/she controls"
This card is odd in that, your opponent does the selection of the target.
The selection is done on casting.
I would argue that Reverberate would allow you to choose a new opponent as that is part of the targetting condition, but the second ruling certainly quashes that notion.
So I'd have to agree with TranscientMaster, the target would remain the same on the copy.
that copy is doomed to be countered for having an illegal target
(well unless the controller of Reverberate and Evangelize were the same)
Personally, I think they should change/clarify the rules to let Reverberate choose a new opponent and have the chosen opponent choose the creature to target for the copy. I'd even go so far as to let Shunt's controller choose a legal opponent of the Shunted spell's controller and have that opponent choose a creature of theirs.
MtG Rules Advisor &
Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJDJ VortexDCI Certified Rules Advisor from July 14, 2009 to July 14, 2012 DCI #5209514320 Wit found in Rules Q&ARPJesus: "Man, screw the rules, I'll play a game of 2HG Archenemy Planechase Emperor EDH draft yet. Once I figure out the rules for it..." Chaikov: "Of course, casual Magic may be played any way your Pokemon group agrees on..." and "It's not logic. It's Magic!" GainsBanding: "I only play online. The Magic Online shuffler is AWESOME!" Ikegami: "one might think [adult cats] would make excellent tokens. The issue, though, is that they are very hard to exile. They return to the battlefield more often than an undying creature." Astarael7: "Does 121.1 imply that players are supposed to wear their poison counters?" Bimmerbot: "If you move the wrong way and [the poison counters] fall, it's a game rule violation" Helluminatus: "Just remember, if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but the oracle text says creature - Bunny , then by god, it's a bunny." MadCow21: "Who are you and what have you done with the real Chaikov?" My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out
|
|
|
